The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
The Dems are going to need some incontrovertible proof that Trump was holding up aid unless/until Ukraine agrees to investigate Biden specifically. Inference and insinuation from Democrats aren't going to make a compelling case. In today's hearing, Schiff was acting out a mafia mob-boss scenario where Trump was supposedly pressuring Zelenskyy to do him favors, but he was using his own subjective and jaded interpretation of the call transcript, and using his own words, to do it. He was departing from the call transcript, and many people were rolling their eyes.
The Dems are asking people to read the phone transcript and infer that pressure from Trump was implied throughout the course of the phone call. They keep quoting the phrase that mentions Biden later in the call and keep saying, "See, this implies that Trump was pressuring..." They keep using the word "imply." However, if you want to impeach a sitting president, there is a significant burden of proof, and you need something more than a subjective read of a phone call (or an anonymous whistle-blower's subjective read of a phone call that s/he didn't participate in).
A lot of people are describing this as a very normal phone call between two world leaders, one that Trump could have simply withheld and protected with executive privilege. The fact that Trump has released the call transcript and the whistle-blower complaint (not just to Congress, but to the public), without using executive privilege, should tell you that he wants this out there and that he wants this to blow up.
In the words of Paul Simon: "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest..."
Last edited:
That's the big IF. If Trump literally said, "No aid for Ukraine unless they investigate the Bidens before the election," then that clearly crosses a line. That would win more support for impeachment, not unanimous support, but more support certainly.
DasJazz
Well-Known Member
Completely unrelated but I have actually met Angela Merkel several times.
DasJazz
Well-Known Member
Probably, she didn't look very happy. But to be fair, she never does.
Americans are split, 49%-46%, on whether they approve of Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Trump, and independents at this point are not on board, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll finds.
But the pollsters warn that the new developments could change public opinion quickly, especially with 7 in 10 saying they are paying attention to the news.
"Democrats in the House have work to do to convince people of the usefulness of their case," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the survey of 864 Americans. The poll was conducted Wednesday night with live phone interviewers. That was one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry, but before a whistleblower complaint about the president's call with the Ukrainian leader was released to the public.
Miringoff added that while "independents still need to be convinced," the next few days are going to be crucial for both Democrats and Republicans, who will be making their cases about the validity of the inquiry.
"It's very important," Miringoff said, "because this is sort of like we are in the middle of a potential storm here."
Americans are also split on whether the impeachment inquiry is a serious matter (50%) or just politics (48%) and whether it's worth going through with if the Senate doesn't convict and Trump gets to stay in office. By a 2-point margin, 49%-47%, they say it's not worth it.
Important for Democrats, half of independents disapprove (50%) of the impeachment inquiry and don't think it's worth it if the Senate doesn't convict (52%). People who live in the suburbs, whom Democrats relied on for support in the 2018 midterms to take back the House, are largely split on each of those questions.
On the impeachment inquiry, 48% of those living in the suburbs approve, while 49% disapprove. And on whether it's worth it, they divide evenly, 49%-49%.
So you're not related to Angela Merkel. Okay.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
This has me worried as well. And I can see McConnell either holding up a trial until after nov 2020 or dismissing it entirely. Wouldn’t be the first time he’d shred a democratic norm.
Jazzta
Guest
Not only that, I find “middle-of-the-road” to be an embarrassing banner to carry over yourself. What is middle-of-the-road anyway, complacent? Approving of a status quo that has led to no practical improvement over issues such as healthcare?
Zombie
Well-Known Member
You're assuming that most people have the same unreasonable standard for Trump's criminality that you do.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I think you meant “tolerance”, not standard.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-whistleblower-cia-officer-column/3778524002/
I completely agree. The fact that the president is talking like a mobster is just unbelievable to me. It’s a clear crime @Catchall, obstruction of justice. You just tolerate it because you’re part of a cult of personality. You’ll do anything to defend Great Leader.
And the fact that elected republicans aren’t taking this seriously is incredibly disappointing:
We really need to vote better people into government. People who faking governing seriously and aren’t just elected because they’re a clown show.
I completely agree. The fact that the president is talking like a mobster is just unbelievable to me. It’s a clear crime @Catchall, obstruction of justice. You just tolerate it because you’re part of a cult of personality. You’ll do anything to defend Great Leader.
And the fact that elected republicans aren’t taking this seriously is incredibly disappointing:
We really need to vote better people into government. People who faking governing seriously and aren’t just elected because they’re a clown show.
Last edited:
You have a cordial phone conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy that you and other pro-impeach Dems are subjectively reading into. (Zelenskyy was the one who voluntarily brought up both corruption and meeting with Guliani. Meanwhile, Ukraine is already the subject of an active DOJ investigation, under Barr, related to the Crowdstrike server.)
You have Zelenskyy denying in a press conference yesterday that he was "pushed" or pressured by Trump.
You have the actual phone transcript and whistleblower complaint made public (not just to Congress), which undermines the claim that there was a cover-up.
If you think that's evidence to impeach a sitting president, I think you're reaching.
But then again, your mind was already made up a long time ago, before anything related to Ukraine ever surfaced.
I thought Romney was one of the Repubs who was "deeply troubled." Didn't you post that just a day or two ago?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Yes, Romney was deeply troubled yesterday. And today he couldn’t get around to read the 9 page whistleblower complaint. Was the senate really busy today passing legislation?
You need an actual crime to take place in order to have any standard of criminality whatsoever.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
If you completely ignore the months of pressure the Trump administration put on Ukraine, this single phone call might not look like much. You're completely dismissing all of the context surrounding it.
You are also making the mistake that a quid pro quo is necessary for what Trump did to be improper and illegal. That's simply not the case.
As far as the cover up goes, we now understand the whistle-blower raised his concern early in August, and alleged that the White House secured the transcript of this call, and others, in a code word secured computer system purely because they contained politically damaging information about the president. This also, is a crime. Finally we know that the DNI decided to make the decision to bring this whistle-blowers complaint to the primary people implicated in the scandal, instead of to congress.
You could pretty easily make that case that Trump is continuing to attempt to cover this up, by calling the whistle blower a spy and suggested we ought to treat him how we "used to treat spies and traitors." That sounds an awful lot like witness intimidation to me.